[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 21, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-103
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-102 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ANNA G. ESHOO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
LEE TERRY, Nebraska GENE GREEN, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Vice Chairman JIM MATHESON, Utah
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi Islands
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JERRY McNERNEY, California
PETE OLSON, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PAUL TONKO, New York
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
7_____
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
LEE TERRY, Nebraska DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JIM MATHESON, Utah
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 4
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico, opening statement............................... 5
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 6
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 6
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 8
Hon. Gregg Harper, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Mississippi, prepared statement................................ 75
Witnesses
Samuel Ginn, Chairman, First Responder Network Authority Board... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Answers to submitted questions............................... 77
David S. Turetsky, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission...................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Answers to submitted questions............................... 91
Darryl Ackley, Secretary, New Mexico Department of Information
Technology..................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answers to submitted questions............................... 94
Stu Davis, Assistant Director, Ohio Department of Administrative
Services....................................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Answers to submitted questions............................... 98
Dereck Orr, Program Manager, Public Safety Communications
Research Program, National Institute of Standards and
Technology..................................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Answers to submitted questions............................... 102
Dennis Martinez, Chief Technology Officer, RF Communications
Division, Harris Corporation................................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Answers to submitted questions............................... 110
OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus,
Blackburn, Lance, Gardner, Long, Eshoo, Matsui, Lujan, and
Waxman (ex officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of
Coalitions; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Kelsey
Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Grace Koh,
Counsel, Communications and Technology; David Redl, Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative
Coordinator; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Gene Fullano,
FCC Detailee; Shawn Chang, Democratic Chief Counsel for
Communications and Technology; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic
Professional Staff Member; Kara van Stralen, Democratic Policy
Analyst; and Patrick Donovan, Democratic FCC Detailee.
Mr. Walden. I am going to call to order the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology. I want to thank our witnesses
for being here today. Just at the outset, I would tell you that
they expect votes on the House floor at about 10:50, or
thereabouts, so I think we will get through our opening
statements. I doubt we get to your presentations initially, but
then we are going to come back right after those votes and
proceed. And so I will start.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Last March, the subcommittee met to conduct our first
oversight hearing of the newly formed First Responder Network
Authority, or FirstNet. FirstNet's charge of building a
nationwide, interoperable, public safety broadband network from
Washington, DC, under the statute was crafted by our friends in
the Senate.
As I noted then, the structure of FirstNet was not my
preferred approach to solving our Nation's public safety
communications challenges. I favored construction from the
bottom up, not the top down, with certain minimum
interoperability requirements set by the Federal government,
and commercial providers running the network, in partnership
with the States. I cautioned then that this approach is not
guaranteed by the legislation as passed, but that FirstNet
could choose to adopt such approach.
While there is significant work to be done to ensure the
States are partners, not customers, of FirstNet, it appears
that FirstNet has made progress in reaching out to State,
tribal, and local jurisdictions along these lines. This is a
significant undertaking, rivaling the network deployments of
our largest national wireless carriers. Today's hearing
reflects the subcommittee's commitment to continued and
thorough oversight of this important effort, and a dedication
to ensure that our Nation's public safety users realize the
benefits, and know the costs, of the State of the art
communications tools that the law envisions.
Now, when we met last March, the FirstNet board had only
recently been assembled. Perhaps because of its infancy, there
was considerable uncertainty among critical stakeholders with
regard to how FirstNet was being administered, and how the
public safety broadband network would be realized.
Unfortunately, rather than seeing those concerns wane as
FirstNet has gained its footing, FirstNet finds itself
embroiled in allegations from within that it lacks
transparency, and suffers from potential ethical conflicts. As
a result, FirstNet is currently under investigation by the
Inspector General of the Department of Commerce. Suffice it to
say, this is not necessarily a confidence inspiring
development. But, for all the efforts by FirstNet, much work
remains to gain the support of the States and the tribes, the
commercial wireless community, and, most importantly, the first
responders, who will rely upon FirstNet in life or death
situations.
Ultimately FirstNet needs the confidence and cooperation of
all these groups to realize the standards, economies of scale,
and potential that FirstNet holds. In order to do so, FirstNet
must be an informative and cooperative national coordinator of
the myriad moving parts that comprise the public safety
community, and do so in short order. Unfortunately, this is
precisely where FirstNet seems to be struggling.
This challenge is best exemplified by the fact that no one
seems to be able to answer the simple question what is
FirstNet? Is FirstNet going to partner with our national
wireless providers, or will it be just another commercial
provider in government clothing? Has FirstNet modeled a cost
for these options? Are States expected to give FirstNet their
existing assets as an up-front payment for participation? What
is FirstNet going to charge local first responders for use of
the network?
Now, these are all questions that we in Congress have been
asked as FirstNet struggles to find its way. And while a few
jurisdictions have managed to negotiate lease agreements with
FirstNet, the fundamental issues regarding cost, coverage, and
timing remain unexplained, as do the processes contemplated for
the exercise of a State's option to participate in the network.
Now, left unresolved, the promise that we made to first
responders to overcome once and for all the lack of
interoperable communications is undermined, and the prospect of
FirstNet's success diminished. We cannot afford to have this
effort fail to produce a network, or worse, have the network
deployed, and then have no one show up to use it.
Today we are asking our witnesses what is working, what is
not working, and how can we help? We will hear from the
chairman of the FirstNet Board, who can provide an update on
progress in the deployment of the Public Safety Broadband
Network, address these fundamental issues, and hopefully allay
our concerns about the openness and transparency of FirstNet's
processes. We will also hear from States, the chief of the
FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, NIST, whose
good work with NTIA on the Public Safety Communications
research program is helping answer some fundamental technology
questions for FirstNet, and a private sector representative who
can provide their perspectives on FirstNet's progress, insights
into their respective roles, and share ideas about what
FirstNet can do better to get the job done.
And because FirstNet will not initially provide mission
critical voice capability, and public safety will continue to
rely on traditional land mobile radio systems for voice
communications, we will take the opportunity to better
understand how the development of the new emergency
communications technologies will be used together with
traditional public safety communications until FirstNet is
capable of addressing public safety's mission critical voice
needs.
So I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today
to address these issues we have raised, and hope to leave with
a higher level of comfort with regard to FirstNet's progress
and confidence in the manner in which it is conducting its
business. That is the purpose of this hearing. I thank the
witnesses for being here, and now I would yield to the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Last March the subcommittee met to conduct our first
oversight hearing of the newly formed First Responder Network
Authority, or FirstNet. FirstNet's charge of building a
nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network from
Washington, DC, under the statute was crafted by our friends in
the Senate. As I noted then, the structure of FirstNet was not
my preferred approach to solving our Nation's public safety
communications challenges. I favored construction from the
bottom up, not the top down, with certain minimum
interoperability requirements set by the Federal Government and
commercial providers running the network in partnership with
the States. I cautioned then that this approach is not
guaranteed by the legislation as passed, but that FirstNet
could choose to adopt such an approach. While there is
significant work to be done to ensure that the States are
partners, not customers, of FirstNet, it appears that FirstNet
has made progress in reaching out to State, tribal, and local
jurisdictions along these lines.
This is a significant undertaking, rivaling the network
deployments of our largest national wireless carriers. Today's
hearing reflects the subcommittee's commitment to continued and
thorough oversight of this effort and a dedication to ensure
that our Nation's public safety users realize the benefits and
know the costs of the state-of-the-art communications tools the
law envisions.
When we met last March, the FirstNet board had only
recently been assembled. Perhaps because of its infancy, there
was considerable uncertainty among critical stakeholders with
regard to how FirstNet was being administered and how the
public safety broadband network would be realized.
Unfortunately, rather than seeing those concerns wane as
FirstNet has gained its footing, FirstNet finds itself
embroiled in allegations from within that it lacks transparency
and suffers from potential ethical conflicts. As a result,
FirstNet is currently under investigation by the Inspector
General of the Department of Commerce. Suffice it to say, this
is not a confidence inspiring development.
But for all the efforts by FirstNet, much work remains to
gain the support of the States and the tribes, the commercial
wireless community, and most importantly the first responders
who will rely on FirstNet in life or death situations.
Ultimately FirstNet needs the confidence and cooperation of all
of these groups to realize the standards, economies of scale,
and potential that FirstNet holds. In order to do so, FirstNet
must be an informative and cooperative national coordinator of
the myriad moving parts that comprise the public safety
community, and do so in short order. Unfortunately, this is
precisely where FirstNet seems tobe struggling.
This challenge is best exemplified by the fact that no one
seems to be able to answer the simple question: ``What is
FirstNet?'' Is FirstNet going to partner with our national
wireless providers or will it be just another commercial
provider in government clothing? Has FirstNet modeled the costs
for these options? Are States expected to give FirstNet their
existing assets as an up front payment for participation? What
is FirstNet going to charge local first responders for use of
the network? These are all questions that we in Congress have
been asked as FirstNet struggles to find its way. And while a
few jurisdictions have managed to negotiate lease agreements
with FirstNet, the fundamental issues regarding cost, coverage
and timing remain unexplained, as do the processes contemplated
for the exercise of a State's options to participate in the
network. Left unresolved, the promise that we made to first
responders to overcome once and for all the lack of
interoperable communications is undermined, and the prospect of
FirstNet's success diminished. We cannot afford to have this
effort fail to produce a network, or worse, have this network
deployed and then have no one show up to use it.
Today, we are asking our witnesses ``what is working, what
isn't working, and how can we help?'' We will hear from the
chairman of the FirstNet Board, who can provide an update on
progress in the deployment of the public safety broadband
network, address these fundamental issues, and hopefully allay
our concerns about the openness and transparency of FirstNet's
processes. We will also hear from States, the chief of the
FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, NIST--whose
good work with NTIA on the Public Safety Communications
Research program is helping answer some fundamental technology
questions for FirstNet, and a private sector representative who
can provide their perspectives on FirstNet's progress, insights
into their respective roles, and share ideas about what
FirstNet can do better to get the job done. And because
FirstNet will not initially provide mission critical voice
capability and public safety will continue to rely on
traditional land mobile radio systems for voice
communications,we will take this opportunity to better
understand how the development of new emergencycommunications
technologies will be used together with traditional public
safety communications until FirstNet is capable of addressing
public safety's mission-critical voice needs.
I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today
and hope to leave with a higher level of comfort with regard to
FirstNet's progress and confidence in the manner in which it is
conducting its business.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am here in
place of Ranking Member Eshoo, who will be arriving shortly.
But I really want to thank everyone for being here today. I
think it is an important issue, and I am glad that we are
looking at the progress that we have made here.
FirstNet is a startup, let us not forget that, and like
every startup, it has had its growing pains. But since our last
hearing, we have seen some progress from FirstNet. FirstNet has
hit some milestones, has established a budget, and hired staff.
Moving forward we need to work together in a bipartisan manner
to ensure its success. If we fail, then we jeopardize the
entire system and put America's first responders at risk. It is
as simple as that.
Throughout the debate on the spectrum law, I remained
focused on the need to responsibly govern any nationwide public
safety interoperability network. I believe governance is
paramount. It is critical to ensure America's first responders
have an efficient and effective interoperability network. It is
also important to ensure we spend taxpayer money wisely.
Despite some initial concerns about the role of States taking a
back seat, I am pleased that the FirstNet board took this issue
head on, and developed a strong, coordinated relationship with
the States.
The FirstNet board has significant responsibility. I
believe the experienced individuals on the board are capable
and qualified to ensure our primary goal of achieving a
nationwide level of interoperability for our Nation's first
responders, while ensuring fiscal responsibility. It is my hope
that we can work together in a bipartisan manner to achieve
success for America's first responders.
And I yield time to Mr. Lujan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much to our Ranking Member
Matsui. And, Mr. Chairman, this is an important hearing that we
are having today. Quite an exciting time, as we talk about the
ability to change the way that we can take advantage of modern
technology to ensure that first responders have the tools that
they need.
I was sharing with my legislative director, Andrew Jones, a
few minutes ago that, while I sat on the New Mexico Public
Regulatory Commission, which is the equivalent of Public
Utility Commissions across the country, we were very unique in
that we had the State fire marshal under our jurisdiction
attached to a Department of Insurance, again, a very unique
relationship that was created.
But in those conversations, getting to speak specifically
to firefighters, with the tragic loss that we have recently had
as well with the firefighters in Arizona, who put out many
fires in New Mexico, and also those that were from New Mexico,
this technology that could be on the body, so that there are
eyes and ears around them, monitoring vital signs with them,
whether they are firefighters, police officers, or any of our
emergency responders, for that matter, is something that I hope
that we can get correct here so that we can keep more people
alive, keep them safer, and truly improve our abilities to make
sure that communities are safer, for that matter, so I am
really excited about this.
I think it is intriguing to note that many of the States as
well have benefitted from investments in these programs with
interoperable systems as a result of the Recovery Act. I know
that there is a difference of opinion sometimes with benefits,
but I hope that this is one that we can agree on, that this
investment was critically important, and that, as we have seen
roll out in many States, we can point back to the importance of
investment in infrastructure.
So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
thank the chairman, the ranking member very much again for this
important hearing.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time,
and I appreciate the comments.
We will now turn to the vice chair of the full committee,
gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all
of our witnesses being here, and the opportunity to have the
hearing, and to do some oversight on FirstNet, and look at how
it is standing up, and, due to the passage of the Spectrum Act,
we all view public safety as an important Federal Government
priority, but we need to do it efficiently, and effectively,
and with a little bit of thought toward the price tag, since it
is all taxpayer money.
As we have seen with the botched rollout of the Obamacare
site, government entities don't have all the answers when it
comes to new technologies, and rolling out a nationwide
interoperable public safety network is going to require
significant consultation and help from the private sector. The
decisions that are made today will determine the success or
failure of FirstNet in its framework. That is why we need
benchmarks, status updates, strong leadership that is focused,
and States need to be given resources to manage their
operations, if they have found a better way.
So I thank you all for being here, and at this time I will
yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, the balance of the
time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And, Mr.
Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing today.
And I appreciate our distinguished witnesses for appearing to
testify today.
A robust public safety communications network is critical
to protecting the lives and safety of the American people. We
have an obligation to ensure that the implementation of
FirstNet is successful and facilitates the communication needs
of first responders that bravely risk their lives for ours.
While I am encouraged by some of the initial progress that
FirstNet has made in the development of the nationwide network,
I have concerns that FirstNet is not sufficiently engaging with
States throughout the process.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses
today, as well as the plans to ensure that FirstNet is closely
consulting with States, and that States have a clearly defined
role in understanding the responsibility and the terms of the
planning, development, funding, and implementation of the
broadband network.
I thank the chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Anyone else on the Republican side? Mr. Long,
do you have any opening statement? OK. Gentleman yields back
the balance of his time. Chair now recognizes the chairman
emeritus of the committee, the ranking Democrat, Mr. Waxman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congress
came together to enact the Public Safety Inspector Act last
year, delivering on one of the last remaining recommendations
from the 9/11 Commission, to create a nationwide interoperable
public safety broadband network for first responders. To
implement this long overdue mission, Congress created the First
Responder Network Authority, or FirstNet. Today, we are
conducting our second FirstNet oversight hearing in less than 8
months, demonstrating the committee's strong bipartisan
interest in ensuring this important job is done right from the
very start.
And I would like to thank Chairman Ginn of the FirstNet
board for testifying again, and updating us on FirstNet's
operations and activities. I would also like to join my
colleagues in thanking Mr. Turetsky for his service as chief of
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, and wishing him
the best of luck in his new role at the FCC.
Given the magnitude of this project, it is critical that
FirstNet and its partners operate efficiently and innovate
aggressively. To meet this challenge, I believe FirstNet is
already moving in the right direction by strengthening its
operations through a sound business plan, a growing, talented
staff, and a fiscally prudent budget. The Board is now
supported by a management team with significant experience in
the wireless industry, public safety communications, and
financial management. FirstNet is putting its expertise to use,
listening to the feedback of various stakeholders, and engaging
in extensive outreach to the public safety and governmental
communities, as well as vendors, carriers, and technology
firms.
From a technical perspective, FirstNet is laying the
foundation for the network architecture through multiple
requests for information that seek input from industry and
other stakeholders. The Public Safety and Spectrum Act has also
tasked the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or
NIST, with conducting research, and assisting with the
development of critical standards and technologies to advance
the types of public safety communications to be supported by
FirstNet. And I look forward to hearing how NIST has been
working with FirstNet to address the technical challenges of
standing up the network.
One of the many challenges FirstNet has grappled with since
our last hearing is how to address the jurisdictions that
received funding for public safety networks through the
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, or BTOP. I am
especially pleased that FirstNet reached an agreement with the
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System
Authority on its BTOP grant. I know reaching such a complex
agreement was not easy, and I appreciate the tenacious good
faith efforts exhibited by all parties to the agreement.
The LARICS project will not only benefit first respondents
of the L.A. region, it will also provide FirstNet with an
opportunity to gather information and share lessons learned
with other projects. The State of New Mexico is also moving
forward with its BTOP grant, and I want to thank Dr. Darryl
Ackley, Chief Information Officer of the State of New Mexico,
for testifying today to discuss his State's agreement with
FirstNet.
And, finally, I appreciate that FirstNet has acted promptly
to address certain procurement and ethics related matters. I
look forward to reviewing the findings of the Department of
Commerce, Office of Inspector General when they have completed
their audit. In conducting oversight of this fledgling
organization, we all share a common interest to protect public
investments and guard against waste, fraud, and abuse that may
threaten the viability of the network. I hope it will continue
to work in a bipartisan way to ensure FirstNet's success. I
thank all the witnesses for testifying. I look forward to your
testimony, and I want to apologize in advance that I have a
conflict, so I won't be able to be here throughout the hearing,
but I will have a chance to review the testimony, and my staff,
of course, will remain here, listen to everything that is said,
and work with you on all of these issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Walden. Do you want to yield your remaining 30 seconds
to Ms. Eshoo?
Mr. Waxman. Was I supposed to do that?
Mr. Walden. Not necessarily, but----
Mr. Waxman. I yield the balance of my time, and maybe even
some extra, to Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Waxman, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I just want to say to the witnesses, I apologize for
being tardy this morning, and I want to thank Congresswoman
Matsui for sitting in, and I look forward to your testimony. I
want to salute you, Mr. Ginn, for the work that you are doing.
I am just so impressed with what has taken place in a short
period of time on a myriad of issues. So I thank you, and I am
forgoing the fabulous opening statement that I had for
everyone, but we will place that in the record. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo
Last Congress, this subcommittee achieved a major milestone
when it laid the groundwork for the first-ever nationwide,
interoperable public safety broadband network. There were many
who thought we would never achieve the last remaining
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and there are some who
still have their doubts. Today's hearing is an opportunity to
hear from FirstNet as well other stakeholders who are directly
involved in the implementation of FirstNet and make sure we
remain on track.
In the eight months since our subcommittee's last oversight
hearing, significant progress has been made. A General Manager
has been named; a 2014 budget has been approved; eleven
technical RFIs have been issued with over 300 responses; the
FCC has approved technical and operational rules; 54 of 56
State and local implementation grants have been awarded; and
FirstNet is well on its way to achieving the goals established
in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
But there's no doubt that much more work lies ahead. The
next 12 months represent a critical phase for FirstNet. To keep
this project on schedule and on budget, FirstNet must continue
to leverage the resources of the commercial wireless sector and
ensure that it conducts a procurement process that is
transparent, that it's based on non-proprietary standards, and
promotes competition among software and device manufacturers. I
have confidence that under the leadership of Sam Ginn, FirstNet
will fulfill its mission to provide our first responders with a
state-of-the-art network that is reliable, hardened, redundant
and secure.
And finally, while I'm disappointed that the Bay Area's
public safety project was unable to reach agreement by last
week's deadline, I support FirstNet's decision to protect
taxpayer dollars and prevent the use of proprietary technology
that could ultimately be incompatible with the nationwide
network. We should learn from both the successes and failures
of this project and the 6 other BTOP public safety projects and
ensure these lessons are applied to FirstNet.
I thank each witness for your commitment to pioneering the
next generation of public safety communications and I look
forward to hearing your important testimony today.
Mr. Walden. I was going to have it framed too, and put on
the wall alongside mine.
I want to welcome our witnesses, and thank especially David
Turetsky, who is the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Thanks for your
service. I understand today is your last day in that role, but
we appreciate your being here. We will try not to make it your
worst day in that role. And so we want to thank you for all
your dedicated years of service.
And I know Mr. Latta was going to introduce our witness
from Ohio. If you want to just say some opening remarks about
him, and then we will get started?
Mr. Latta. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome Stu Davis, who is the Chief Information Officer for the
State of Ohio. You know, Stu has been instrumental in leading
Ohio's efforts statewide in public safety emergency management
communication system. He has been a leader in the IT industry,
and it is an honor to have him here representing the great
State of Ohio. So welcome, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Walden. We welcome all of our witnesses, and we will
start now with the man in charge, who is undertaken this
incredibly challenging task, and put a lot of effort into it,
no doubt, Mr. Sam Ginn, who is the Chairman of the First
Responder Network Authority. Sam, thank you for being here.
Thanks for your interaction with the subcommittee, and your
service for the country, and we look forward to your statement,
sir.
STATEMENTS OF SAMUEL GINN, CHAIRMAN, FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK
AUTHORITY BOARD; DAVID S. TURETSKY, CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND
HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
DARRYL ACKLEY, SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY; STU DAVIS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES; DERECK ORR, PROGRAM MANAGER, PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY; AND DENNIS MARTINEZ, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER, RF COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION, HARRIS CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL GINN
Mr. Ginn. Yes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate the opportunity. And, Congresswoman Eshoo, it is
nice to be here, and I hope that this session will be
productive, and we will be able to answer your questions.
I would just like to start out by making a couple of
observations. We can get into all the technical issues around
outreach and contracts and other things, but I want you to
understand that we know who holds the responsibility for
building this network. We do. And I think one of the critical
issues about this bill is Congress recognized you want to put
the responsibility on an entity, and that is us. We hold that
responsibility, and we hold it with an attitude that we can get
this network built. So I think we have to start there.
I think the other thing that we have to recognize is this
is a large, complex project, enormous scale, enormous technical
issues. Critical issues surround outreach to the customers, and
I must tell you that we understand if we don't build this
system to meet the needs of public safety, it will not be
successful. I think principle one is we know we have to do
that, and in the testimony we talk about all kind of outreach,
and things that we are doing to understand the requirements of
public safety, and that information is being filtered in to the
technical organization as we design the system.
So we will have time to get into those issues, but I don't
want us to miss a larger point, and this is it. When we build
this network, and we will build this network, it is going to
revolutionize public safety in ways that we don't even
understand. It is like most revolutions. When they start out,
you know things are going to be different. But when this
network is in place, we are going to revolutionize public
safety.
Let me give you an analogy, and a simple one. I want you to
think back, when you got your first cell phone, and how you
used it. And now I want you to think back, given the
applications that are available for you to download, how has it
affected your day to day life? And I would say significantly.
And the point I want to make to you is, when this network goes
in place, we will see the innovation and creativity of public
safety all across the country, where they step up and solve
local issues, local situations, that basically lower their
costs, or serve the public better, or increase their own
safety.
So I don't want us to lose the larger point in this
conversation, simply to say that we are going to get this done,
and when we do, I think there will be a tremendous advantage
not only to public safety, but to citizens of the country, and
all of us who are worried about the cost of providing service
to the country. And my sense is that we can take them down
dramatically.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ginn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Ginn, thank you. They have called votes,
and so I think what we will do, before proceeding with others,
is go ahead now and recess the committee. We have got a couple
of votes, I believe, and then we will be back as soon after the
votes as our members can get here, and we will resume this
hearing.
So, with that, we will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Walden. Call back to order the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, and my apologies that the votes
went longer than anticipated, but we have returned, and we
appreciate testimony of Mr. Ginn, and I think we were just
going to Mr. Turetsky when we had to take a break.
So, sir, if you will turn on that microphone, pull it
close, we will resume our hearing.
STATEMENT OF DAVID S. TURETSKY
Mr. Turetsky. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and
Vice-Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
FCC's efforts to support FirstNet through implementation of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and our
ongoing mission to enhance public safety and emergency
communications.
Traditional public safety land mobile systems continue to
provide mission critical voice capability for first responders,
and will continue to do so for some time, and must be
maintained. But they cannot support the data rich applications
that are more and more necessary for public safety personnel to
do their jobs. In part, that is why Congress passed the Act, to
create a nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network
for the public safety community.
As Chairman Wheeler stated earlier this week,
communications networks are changing, and fast. And where
technological change and public safety intersect, there are
both challenges and opportunities. Congress included some
specific tasks for the FCC to support FirstNet's mission when
it passed the Act in February 2012. For example, it directed
the FCC to establish the technical advisory board for first
responder interoperability within 30 days. That board then had
90 days to develop minimum technical requirements to ensure a
nationwide level of interoperability for the FirstNet network.
The Commission then had 30 days to approve and transmit the
recommendations to FirstNet. The Commission met each of these
deadlines.
Beyond these specific tasks, the Commission has also worked
to fulfill its statutory obligation to ``take all actions
necessary to facilitate the transition'' of the 700 megahertz
public safety broadband spectrum to FirstNet. Last month the
Commission unanimously adopted a report and order that
established the basic technical rules for the FirstNet
spectrum. Those rules will not only help to accomplish goals
like preventing interference, but, vitally, will give vendors
guidance they need to compete and innovate, and enable the
Commission to certify equipment promptly. These rules are
supported by the record, and are consistent with comments from
FirstNet, and others.
We recognize that we still have more to address under the
law. For example, in some areas, there are incumbent public
safety narrow band operations in the FirstNet spectrum which
pre-date the designation of this spectrum for broadband use.
The Act also provides that if a State seeks to exercise its
opt-out rights, the Commission must either approve or
disapprove the State's opt-out plans, based on specific
statutory criteria. We intend to provide clear guidance to the
States and FirstNet on how that will work before States have to
choose whether to opt out.
The Commission is also considering how best to implement
the T-band provisions of the Act, which require future
relocation of those public safety systems, and auction of the
vacated spectrum. The Bureau issued a public notice on this,
and received comments over the summer. We will work with all
stakeholders and our Federal partners to ensure that these
transitions occur seamlessly and transparently as much as
possible.
Next, the public safety community faces another transition
to NG-911, which can revolutionize the way the public seeks
help. This is tightly interwoven with the FirstNet network, as
NG-911 and the FirstNet network can be complementary components
of an end to end broadband echo system. Public safety call
centers will serve as hubs for data from 911 callers, such as
photos or film clips, which can then be disseminated to first
responders through the FirstNet network. One step the FCC is
taking to facilitate the transition to NG-911 is to advance
Text-to-911. People expect to be able to use the means of
communications that they use every day to get help, and text
messaging is part of the fabric of modern life. It also is the
only practical or safe way to reach out for help in some
circumstances. Also, wireless calls to 911 increasingly
originate indoors. Obtaining an accurate location for those
callers can be a challenge, and we held a major workshop at the
FCC about that earlier this week.
Finally, I want to mention the successful use of wireless
emergency alerts to warn the public of emergencies. Just this
past weekend, mobile users in the path of tornadoes in Illinois
received warnings from the National Weather Service sent via
the Wireless Emergency Alert System. Reports are that this
helped some people get to safety before the tornadoes struck.
Since implementation in the summer of 2012, WEA, as we call it,
warnings have helped to recover kidnapped children, evacuate
areas during Superstorm Sandy, and otherwise alert people to
get to safety in an emergency.
In closing, transition is the watchword, and the Commission
intends to achieve it by working with all stakeholders in a
transparent and responsible manner. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turetsky follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, and thanks to the FCC for their good
work in this area, and meeting the deadlines.
We will go now to Mr. Darryl Ackley, who is the Cabinet
Secretary for the New Mexico Department of Information and
Technology. Mr. Ackley, thank you for being here today, and
thanks for your patience. We look forward to your testimony,
sir.
STATEMENT OF DARRYL ACKLEY
Mr. Ackley. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, members of the subcommittee. Thank you as well for the
opportunity to be here today to present on the status of the
project in New Mexico in public safety broadband. Excited to be
here today. I am the Chief Information Officer for the State of
New Mexico, and Cabinet Secretary over the Information
Technology Department, appointed in February of 2011 by
Governor Susanna Martinez when she took office. I also serve as
the representative from the National Association of State Chief
Information Officers to the FirstNet Public Safety Advisory
Committee, but asked to be here today to update specifically on
the activities within the State of New Mexico.
A little bit of background, the IT Department in New Mexico
is the enterprise service provider for the State, in
traditional domain, but we also operate the Public Safety Land
Mobile Radio Communication Network for our State's first
responders and officials, to include a fairly large tower
asset, and land mobile radio component. We operate that in a
chargeback manner, and provide hopefully great service for our
citizens in the State.
In 2010 New Mexico was one of the applicants and recipients
of a BTOP grant to build out both additional digital microwave
infrastructure within the State, but also to deploy a pilot
broadband program, LTE, within the 10 megahertz of spectrum
that were dedicated for public safety under the Public Safety
Spectrum Trust. In 2011, when I took the office, we
incorporated that into a comprehensive plan to modernize public
safety communications within the State of New Mexico along
three areas. One, having a resilient and robust backhaul
infrastructure. This is towers, et cetera. The second, to
address critical gaps in our State's land mobile radio
communications. But the third, and in line with our BTOP grant,
to deploy public safety broadband within the State, and we saw
these three as being very compatible with one another.
As part of that plan, we began work in earnest on the tower
upgrades, which are nearly complete, providing us a digital
microwave backbone. At the juncture we were about to deploy in
the LTE for the public safety broadband, of course, in 2012 was
when the Spectrum Act was passed, creating FirstNet, and
opening the D block for use by that entity. Our grant was
partially suspended in that regard in the LTE while the
FirstNet board was brought into being, while they organized and
got moving.
In December of 2012, so about a year ago, we were visited
by board members Jeff Johnson and Sue Swenson to review our
BTOP program, as they visited all the BTOP waiver recipients.
At that time we presented our original plan for a build-out in
that LTE spectrum, but also provided some alternative plans to
work with the board through, in case they wanted to see some
different options. We presented a pilot project build-out along
the Southwest border that we thought could have some impact in
our State, but also provide some valuable learning conditions
to the board. Then that had quite a bit of resonance, so from
that point on we began working with the FirstNet board, as well
as with folks at NTIA and FCC to develop that into a pilot
project, as well as begin negotiations with the FirstNet board
for a lease in the spectrum so that we could begin to build
that out.
Over the course of about 6 months we iterated with them, we
worked through that negotiation. Of course, you know, any
negotiation has its ups and downs. New Mexico very much wanted
to make sure that what we had in place would serve our
citizens, and our constituents, but also give us flexibility,
and, I am sure with FirstNet, give them the flexibility that
they needed. I am proud to say we accomplished that. We have a
non-exclusive State-wide lease in that spectrum, and are
working towards developing the RFP to proceed with the
Southwest border project.
We have been granted that lease with three key learning
conditions that, in conjunction with the FirstNet board, we
developed for that build-out. And those key learning conditions
are, one, demonstrating the ability of, you know, cross-
jurisdictional interaction by working with the deployed corps
in Harris County, Texas. The second being looking at the
frequency issues, the spectrum issues, associated with
operating on the U.S.-Mexico border, and what that is going to
mean on a larger scale as the FirstNet build-out rolls out. And
then, third, the opportunity to potentially incorporate Federal
users onto that system as we deploy, given the presence of
Customs and Border Patrol, Immigrations and Customs, and other
Federal operations along that boundary. So, at that point, we
are working on publishing the RFPs to start the first phase of
this operation, and hope to begin that in the First Quarter of
2014.
With that, my time is about up, and I would love to answer
any questions that you have later.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. All right, Mr. Ackley, thank you very much. We
look forward to learning more about the experience that New
Mexico has had. Sounds like it has been a good one. Mr. Davis,
we are delighted to have you here. Mr. Stu Davis is a State
Chief Information Office and Assistant Director of the Ohio
Department of Administrative Services. We are very appreciative
that you were able to join us, and we look forward to your
testimony too, sir. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF STU DAVIS
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Walden,
Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify on FirstNet and the
nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network Initiative. My name
is Stu Davis. I currently serve as the Ohio State Chief
Information Officer, and the Assistant Director of the Ohio
Department of Administrative Services. As the State CIO, I
lead, oversee, and direct State agency activities related to
information technology development and its use. As Assistant
Director of DAS, I oversee the Office of Information
Technology, which delivers information technology and
telecommunications services to State government agencies,
boards, and commissions. I also serve as the Chair of the
Multi-Agency Radio Communication Systems, MARCS, on that
steering committee, which is Ohio's land mobile radio system
that supports voice and data communications of statewide public
safety and emergency management. I also chair Ohio's Emergency
Service IP Network, ESINet, steering committee, focused on
Ohio's Next Gen 911 solution.
The Ohio General Assembly had concerns about FirstNet, and
passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 earlier this year.
Specific concerns were around the business plan, the costs the
State would bear, either mandated or obligated, the ability to
opt-out with no cost if not appropriate for Ohio, to have
written assurances that it would meet, exceed current levels of
service in the areas of reliability, redundancy, and State-
based system control, as well as fair market compensation for
access and utilization of State-owned assets in support of
network deployment. It called for this subcommittee to continue
these meetings, and we commend you for doing so. Thank you.
FirstNet outreach has significantly improved, and is more
consistent than we have seen in the past, which is great. We
still have questions regarding requirements, user community
rules and responsibilities, the overarching business case, and
defined businesses and operational models, and, of course, near
and long-term funding. We need to have further insight into
these components so we can properly plan for future
initiatives.
It is important that FirstNet views relationships with the
States as a partnership, and that continues. Currently the
planning grants available to States are focused on outreach and
education. For FirstNet to be successful, they need to focus on
the development of those relationships with the State,
modifying their approach to be one of engagement, not product
marketing to States. An example of partnering would be strong
engagement on the requirements, and a definition of roles and
responsibilities. It would make sense to have individual State
discussions, and perhaps negotiate these terms, before
releasing an RFP to build out FirstNet. If this does not take
place, there will be very little time for the States to react
and determine the best path forward. If we are not part of
those negotiations of those details of a blanket RFP prior to
its release, it will be detrimental to both parties.
There are numerous requirements that need to be defined
before architecting a solution. This runs the gamut from user,
to technical, to operational requirements. It is difficult to
architect a solution to undefined user requirements, and
without clear expectations. FirstNet needs to be extremely
sensitive to the fact that moving full steam ahead on
identifying the technical aspects of the system several months
before regional outreach positions are in place can be a little
risky. Choosing technical specifications in the absence of
understanding the needs of the State could also be detrimental
to the long-term viability of the network.
We need to know these requirements and understand what the
impact of these efforts will have on existing Ohio initiatives.
In Ohio, this would be MARCS. It would also be the
consideration of other statewide initiatives, such as Next
Generation 911, which should be viewed as a component of
FirstNet. Several States, including Ohio, have stated that
current Next Gen design efforts must integrate with FirstNet in
the future. Understanding the impact on MARCS, as well as Next
Generation 911, is critical to our planning process.
We would also like to see the business model. I understand
the difficulties there, but it is critical for us to be able to
understand the sustainability of the effort that we have going
forward. Building the cost recovery and usage rates will be
instrumental in the adoption of the effort. The answer I get
is, build, and ongoing costs will be supported through
partnerships with the State, and subscription from early
adopters. I don't believe this is sustainable. Someone has to
pay for operations while adoption ramps up and takes place.
The concern would be the responsibility for the operational
costs, and, more to the point, adoption of MARCS, at $20 a
month, gets significant pushback from some of our user
community. Volunteer firefighters push back on $240 a year to
have an operational radio on our system. How will they pay for
both? I would like to better understand these aspects before we
can move forward a little bit.
Again, with the capital investment from Federal Government,
where is the revenue to sustain the FirstNet operations in each
State? The interpretation of public safety use only must be
clearly defined. Without the revenue from broad secondary use
of excess capacity, the model may not be sustainable.
In Ohio we are working through IT optimization efforts to
align all our IT assets, resources, and current expenditures to
reduce duplication of effort and increase efficiencies of the
benefit to the citizen. A key of this is adoption and
leveraging of past investments. We are expending dollars today
to support law enforcement and first responders. These past
investments, I mentioned MARCS and Next Generation 911, there
has to be a path forward to protect those current and previous
investments so that these systems are integrated and leveraged.
We need to be able to plan and forecast impacts and direction
of current efforts to be able to align with FirstNet.
Understanding the operational costs and potential costs to the
user community will be directly related to law enforcement and
first responder adoption.
I understand that FirstNet will also leverage, or attempt
to leverage, existing vertical assets the State currently owns,
lease, or is carrying debt on. There are financial, legal,
jurisdictional issues regarding use of existing State, local,
and private assets. There are numerous bonding and legal
considerations that must be thought through for many States.
We continue to have concerns about funding, and it is
important to note that, after having said all these things, I
am supportive of the concept of the Nationwide Public Safety
Broadband Network, and I believe Ohio is uniquely positioned to
take advantage of the significant opportunity to coordinate and
converge multiple efforts. These efforts include MARCS, as well
as the Ohio Next Generation System, and I look forward to the
opportunity to partner on this effort and ensure impacts to
current initiatives are in alignment with Ohio's direction.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Davis, thank you for your testimony. I
think you have summed it up well. We all want it to work, and
be affordable, and that is what we are striving to get to.
Mr. Dereck Orr is the Program Manager, Public Safety
Communications Research, Office of Law Enforcement Standards,
National Institute of Standards and Technology. That is a long
title. But we are glad you are here, and we look forward to
your testimony, sir. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF DERECK ORR
Mr. Orr. Thank you very much. Chairman Walden, Ranking
Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
advancement of public safety wireless communications. I serve
as the Program Manager for the Public Safety Communications
Research Program, which is a joint effort between the National
Institute of Standards and Technology and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration at the
Department of Commerce Labs located in Boulder, Colorado.
The Public Safety Communications Research Program serves as
the technical lead for several administration initiatives
focused on public safety communications. Our longest standing
program sponsor is the Department of Homeland Security's Office
of Interoperability and Compatibility within the Science and
Technology Directorate. The PSCR program is also involved in
many of DHS's communications interoperability related programs,
including the SAFECOM program within the Office of Emergency
Communications. Additionally, PSCR is sponsored by the First
Responder Network Authority to advance public safety broadband
communication standards, and is developing additional research
projects related to public safety broadband communications that
the PSCR is uniquely qualified to execute. NIST greatly
appreciates as well the confidence that Congress placed in NIST
by allocating critical funding for public safety communications
research and development in the legislation that established
FirstNet.
Working alongside our Federal partners, the PSCR program
has played the lead technical role in key advancement in public
safety communications over the last decade. In 2010 the PSCR
program, in partnership with DHS, deployed in the Boulder area
a first-of-its-kind fourth-generation, long-term evolution, 700
megahertz public safety broadband demonstration network. This
network was developed in collaboration with industry through
cooperative research and development agreements between NIST,
NTIA, and over 75 individual industry partners to date. This
public/private partnership has resulted in one of the most
vendor diverse 4G LTE networks in the world. The demonstration
network allows PSCR to test and evaluate key broadband features
critical to public safety, including multi-vendor
interoperability, indoor, in-building coverage, and extended
cell coverage possibilities for rural areas. In addition,
future work will focus on priority access and quality of
service for the network.
As part of PSCR's modeling and simulation efforts, PSCR
conducts performance analysis of advanced communications
networks using commercially available and in-house customized
modeling simulation tools. In support of a nationwide public
safety broadband network, PSCR develops metrics and tools used
to characterize the performance of LTE networks, which will
help inform decision-making about network design.
PSCR continues to lead the requirements development efforts
for the public safety broadband, working directly in support of
the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council. NPSTC's
broadband working group has developed requirements documents
for mission critical voice, local control, and priority and
quality of service that clearly define public safety's
expectations of the nationwide broadband network capabilities.
In December 2012 NPSTC delivered the public safety
broadband launch requirements to the FirstNet Board of
Directors and the Public Safety Advisory Committee. The launch
requirements define public safety's expectations for the
nationwide network at launch. More recently, NPSTC delivered
push-to-talk over LTE requirements to FirstNet. Current
requirements efforts focus on the definition of public safety
grade as it applies to the nationwide broadband network. These
requirements documents are used as the fundamental basis of
PSCR's formal standards development efforts related to LTE on
behalf of FirstNet and the public safety community. Based upon
testing and evaluation, modeling and simulation, and
requirements gathering efforts, all of which inform the
standards development effort at PSCR, there have been
significant advances in the commercial LTE standards specific
to public safety.
In December 2012 public safety was identified as the number
one priority for the current version of LTE standards being
developed within the third generation partnership project,
which is the official standards development organization for
LTE. This is a major accomplishment, given public safety's
limited user base, compared to the worldwide commercial
wireless user base. With this added momentum, and as part of
the NPSTC mission critical voice requirements, PSCR is
addressing the two largest gaps identified in LTE's ability to
support mission critical voice capabilities, which are direct
mode, device-to-device communications, and group
communications. PSCR also has recently launched an effort to
standardize mission critical push-to-talk LTE within 3GPP.
And, finally, working in the international standards
community, alongside public safety from other countries, will
lead to a global public safety LTE marketplace. This should
decrease costs, while increasing the availability of advanced
features to the worldwide public safety community.
In conclusion, PSCR will continue its public safety driven
approach to advancing communications technologies for our
Nation's first responders, and we look forward to continuing
and expanding our valuable partnerships across public safety,
local, State, tribal, and Federal Government organizations, as
well as industry. Again, I am honored to be here before the
subcommittee today, and I am happy to answer any questions you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Orr follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Orr, thank you for your testimony, we
appreciate that.
And now, because we have a lot of doctors before our
committee, we can't have a hearing without at least a doctor on
the panel, Dr. Dennis M. Martinez, Chief Technology Officer, RF
Communications Division, Harris Corporation. Dr. Martinez, we
are delighted to have you here, and we look forward to your
expert testimony.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS MARTINEZ
Mr. Martinez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me to testify today on FirstNet, and the advancement of public
safety wireless communications. I previously testified before
this committee on May 21 of 2011, during the hearing on
creating an interoperable public safety broadband network. Last
year I served as an appointed member of the Technical Advisory
Board for First Responder Interoperability. In that role, I
joined leaders representing State and local governments, public
safety entities, wireless service providers, and equipment
manufacturers in developing the recommended minimum technical
requirements to ensure nationwide interoperability for the
National Public Safety Broadband Network. These requirements
were conveyed by the FCC to FirstNet, and, as required by law,
will be incorporated in future RFPs issued by FirstNet.
I am here today to provide this committee with a technical
perspective on FirstNet's mission and activities, with the goal
of informing the committee on areas of progress since passage
of the landmark legislation last year. There are four
activities that I will address, pilot projects, standards of
development, regulatory policy, and response to FirstNet
inquiries.
Since January 2012, Harris has implemented pilot LTE
projects in five jurisdictions. Most recently, Harris conducted
live demonstrations of a deployable solution in remote Northern
California that is not served by commercial broadband networks.
These pilot projects utilized public safety broadband spectrum,
and were implemented almost entirely at Harris expense, and we
received support from the FCC and the FirstNet team, who
facilitated and approved short-term spectrum use
authorizations.
We had several objectives for launching these projects.
First, we aimed at creating a learning experience for public
safety entities that wanted firsthand knowledge of the exciting
prospects promised by the eventual broadband network.
Additionally, we sought learning experiences that would advance
our own understanding of how to apply this State of the art
commercial technology in a mission critical setting. Our
findings were simple, but profound.
First, while there were many public safety entities that
currently use commercial broadband networks in day-to-day
operations, the prospect of a dedicated network optimized for
their mission critical needs is highly valued. In fact, many of
these entities are anxious to support deployment of the
broadband network in their jurisdiction. Secondly, commercial
LTE technology can be configured, through rigorous design
practices, to support some mission critical needs today. The
key gap that currently exists is mission critical voice.
Notwithstanding that, we successfully demonstrated technology
that permits interoperability between legacy and mission
critical radio systems, and services that operate over Band 14
LTE.
And that brings me to the second topic area, which is the
development of standards that will support mission critical
voice on the broadband network and enable nationwide
interoperability. Several activities are underway in 3GPP, TIA,
and ATIS that are addressing this need. Under the Spectrum Act,
FirstNet must represent the interest of public safety users in
these standards development activities, and to do so in
consultation with the director of NIST, the FCC, and the Public
Safety Advisory Committee. Although not explicitly noted in the
Spectrum Act, we also believe there is significant benefit for
FirstNet to consult and collaborate in this process with
private sector entities likely supplying the required products
and services that implement these emerging standards.
In addition to the development of standards, continuing
evolution of the regulatory framework for FirstNet will be
important to its success. As a manufacturer of LTE user
equipment, Harris is pleased with the significant milestone
that was achieved earlier, when the FCC released the first
iteration of Band 14 service rules. These rules are a
significant step, and one that is required for OEMs to continue
their investment in products and technologies that FirstNet
will need in its deployment, and first responders will need in
order to operate on the NPSBN. Toward that goal, and in advance
of these final requirements, we note that FirstNet has done
significant work to require their early build-outs are
interoperable, and should be commended for supporting efforts
to make procurements for these projects competitive and multi-
vendor.
Finally, we commend the FirstNet team on their significant
success and progress in their RFI process. That has given us,
the private sector, a significant window of visibility into
potential requirements for equipment and services that they
will procure. As FirstNet completes its State and local
collaboration and begins finalization of the technical
requirements for the broadband network, we encourage FirstNet
to engage the private sector at each opportunity. This is an
essential step for continued investment by the private sector
in FirstNet, which, in turn, is important for timely
availability of products and services that FirstNet will need
to procure.
In closing, I once again thank the committee for inviting
me to testify on this matter of great importance to the
American public. Harris remains eager to support FirstNet, and
this committee, to make this happen. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Dr. Martinez, we appreciate your
testimony. We will go to questions now.
Mr. Ginn, in my opening statement I expressed a concern we
have heard from a number of potential partners and
stakeholders, namely that FirstNet doesn't seem to know what it
wants to be. I don't mean that as a personal criticism. It is a
question I think I would like to get to Mr. Ackley and Mr.
Davis. One State says, we are good to go, and it all worked
well. The other State is saying, I am not so sure, and what
this is going to mean in the long-term costs and implications.
And so I guess my question would be, can you tell us what
is FirstNet's plan to realize this network?
Mr. Ginn. Well, that is going to take a few moments. First
off, on the principle of working with other States, from our
point of view, needs to be a joint effort.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Ginn. It should be jointly negotiated. When we reach
the point where we have completed the RFP and presented to the
States, there will be no surprises in Ohio as to what is in
the----
Mr. Walden. So let me stop you there for a second, because
that was one of the issues Mr. Davis raised, is how that
communication on the RFP will take place. Correct, Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. That is correct. I think what we want to make
sure of is that the collaboration piece stays in place, and
that those technical documents that go out to----
Mr. Ginn. And, by the way, I agree with that. As a----
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Ginn [continuing]. Matter of fact----
Mr. Walden. Good.
Mr. Ginn [continuing]. If you look at our work plan for
2014, we are establishing 10 regional offices that complement
FEMA areas, and their sole responsibility is going to be
working with States in coming up with radio access networks to
feed into the national grid. So maybe one of the issues here is
his expectation is beyond our ability to deliver. But when you
think about, it takes 4 to 8 months to hire a single employee
in the Federal Government. You don't get these things done that
quickly.
So my comment to Mr. Davis would be, work with us. We want
to do this as partners. Hopefully, at the end of this, we will
have agreed on a network plan for Ohio. And when it is
presented, you will know all the details, even before it is
presented----
Mr. Walden. So the other issue that I believe you raised,
Mr. Davis, was the long-term financial stability of FirstNet,
kind of what you are buying into, and what it is going to cost
you long-term, right? And what about State assets? Do you think
you are going to be asked to put all your assets in the pot and
say goodbye to them, and then be part of FirstNet with an open
ended cost, potentially, down the road? Is that the concern
Ohio has?
Mr. Davis. I think it has a variety of different components
to it, and I think we just have to work through those things.
And----
Mr. Walden. Uh-huh.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. It is sort of a step-by-step
process. And every State is going to have similar issues, in
terms of leveraging existing assets, even if it is----
Mr. Walden. Uh-huh.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. Lease space, and things that we
have going on. And phase two of the planning grants that are
out there will hopefully address some of those things. But the
questions that we get when we go out and do the outreach
components within Ohio all come back to, what is the cost? We
recognize that we don't know those things today----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. But the more that we can have a
sustainable business model at least--to their process, the
better off we are all going to be in the long run.
Mr. Ginn. To give you some idea of the complexity of this,
70 percent of the cost of the network is going to be in cell
site locations, OK?
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ginn. It is a high percentage. It matters in the total
economics. If----
Mr. Walden. Of course.
Mr. Ginn [continuing]. We could get each State and the
Federal Government to allow us to use those without fees, it
would dramatically reduce the cost of this network, OK? Now, he
would----
Mr. Walden. Well, that was one of our original ideas, I
think, was to build from the State up, and not create a
separate set of systems, but----
Mr. Ginn. Well, I guess the way I would say that, maybe a
little differently, we have to start out with a core that
covers the entire United States, and then we have to make sure
that----
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Ginn [continuing]. State systems are comparable----
Mr. Walden. Interoperable.
Mr. Ginn [continuing]. With connecting into that core,
around interoperability, and security, and reliability, and all
the other issues that we will mandate.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum. So, Mr. Ackley, in the 11 seconds I
have left, what gave you confidence in your State to go ahead
and enter into this arrangement?
Mr. Ackley. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the fact that New
Mexico had done some substantial work in this arena before the
passage of the Spectrum Act, so this was something that we were
already incorporating into our planning, and working towards.
And I think that gave us a position to be able to work with the
FirstNet board from some assumptions we had developed early on,
with respect to----
Mr. Walden. And you are comfortable with the long-term
potential cost implications, and the ability to afford
participation down the road?
Mr. Ackley. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there are a lot of
good points that are raised----
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Ackley [continuing]. Here that need to be addressed.
You know, comfort is something that is going to increase, I
think, as these issues are addressed. You know, things such as
asset----
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Ackley [continuing]. Cost allocation and recovery,
the----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ackley [continuing]. Usage, the business model, and
those sorts of things. I think, from our position, it is
something, if we can maintain the involvement as a State, and
working with FirstNet on this----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ackley [continuing]. That we can continue to develop
that comfort.
Mr. Walden. All right. My time has expired, and I am going
to turn the gavel over to Mr. Latta, and I am going to
recognize Ms. Eshoo for questions. I have to excuse myself to
take a meeting. But I want to thank you all, and know that you
know we are concerned. Want to make sure this all works for
first responders, and for the country. We commend the work that
has been done. I know it is a huge startup, and we just want to
continue to do our appropriate oversight.
I recognize the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you to each one of you for traveling here,
and for your excellent written testimony, as well as the spoken
testimony, and for your patience. Inevitably, when we have,
what I think, are some of the most important hearings, the
bells go off, and you have to wait, so thank you for your
patience.
Mr. Ginn, thank you for your leadership. This is a heavy
lift, and it is somewhat complicated. It is not as if we don't
have any systems in our country. We do. The problem is they are
not interoperable. And these systems have been in place longer.
Obviously, they have a history. What we are doing now is really
rewriting history. And so there is a push and a pull in
different places. I understand it. Change is not easy to make,
and it is menacing to people that have done it a certain way
for a long, long time. I don't hold it against them, but I
think the signal is, you know what? We are on the move. This
has to change. It has to change because of what our country
endured.
So thank you for your leadership, and I think that your
credentials from the private sector are superb. And I don't
want to say it is good to hear about your frustrations, but it
also demonstrates that it is difficult to merge the public and
the private. But I have confidence in you, I really do.
Now, in September the FCC, Mr. Ginn, announced, you know,
this landmark voluntary industry solution to achieve
interoperability in the lower 700 megahertz band. What I would
like to know is what steps is FirstNet taking to leverage this
opportunity, if, in fact, you can, and do you think that the
agreement is going to provide the first responders with more
roaming opportunities, and greater redundancy? I am very
excited about----
Mr. Ginn. Yes. You are talking about the interoperable task
force at the FCC that gave us the standards?
Ms. Eshoo. No. This is the voluntary solution that was
agreed upon with industry stakeholders. If you are not familiar
with it, I can go on to----
Mr. Ginn. Yes. No, maybe----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Another question. Yes. No, I can go
on to another question. I have----
Mr. Ginn. OK.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. 2 minutes and 23 seconds, and a
trip out to Dulles.
To Dr. Martinez, thank you for being here again. In your
testimony you talked about the importance of developing
standards for mission critical voice, and that is a very, very
important area. Does the absence of such a standard prevent
your company from supporting build-out projects? I am not so
sure, from your testimony, if that is the case. And, you know,
I mean, the examples would be Los Angeles, or the State of New
Mexico.
Mr. Martinez. Congresswoman Eshoo, no, it does not. The----
Ms. Eshoo. Good.
Mr. Martinez. [continuing]. Absence of a standard is not a
pre-requisite to proceed with a BTOP program.
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Martinez. However, to the extent that such a program
would have a requirement for mission critical voice, then we
have to ensure that the implementation of that requirement in a
BTOP program would not preclude future compatibility with
whatever FirstNet chooses as a mission critical standard.
Ms. Eshoo. So it complicates it, is that what you are
saying?
Mr. Martinez. I would say it is a factor that has to be
considered, but----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Martinez [continuing]. It should certainly not be a
showstopper for proceeding with a----
Ms. Eshoo. Good.
Mr. Martinez [continuing]. BTOP project.
Ms. Eshoo. OK.
Mr. Martinez. And, by the way, not all BTOP projects would
necessarily require a----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Martinez [continuing]. Mission critical voice
component.
Ms. Eshoo. Good. Back to Mr. Ginn, you know that I have
been involved in Next Generation 911, the 911 issues, going
back to the '90s, obviously long before our country was
attacked. Do you see the Next Gen 911 being integrated into
what FirstNet is doing?
Mr. Ginn. I absolutely do. As I understand, Next Gen 911,
you are not only going to be able to take voice, but you are
going to be able to take data----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Ginn [continuing]. Photographs, and other capabilities.
Well, guess what, LTE is data-centric. It has a great
capability to transmit data. And so, the way I see it, very
simply, is information coming into the 911 centers can very
easily be sent right to a law enforcement officer at a point in
the district in seconds.
Ms. Eshoo. That is----
Mr. Ginn. So----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Wonderful. So it will be----
Mr. Ginn. Yes. I just see us as a real enabler to adding
benefits to Next Generation.
Ms. Eshoo. Bravo. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Latta [presiding]. The gentlelady from California
yields back, and the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
And, again, thanks very much for you all being here today.
Really appreciate your testimony, and it is very informative
because, when we had the hearing earlier this year to find out
where we have gone and come from that timeframe.
And, Mr. Davis, if I could ask you a few questions,
especially coming from the Ohio perspective? Some of the things
that were brought up, especially by the folks that were here
earlier this year from Maryland and Virginia, and their
concerns, just to get your perspective as to where you think
things are, and where they were earlier this year. And in your
testimony, when you talk about the partnership versus the
customer, and particularly on the partnering, you said it would
be stronger engagement on the requirements and the
determination of roles and responsibilities. Do you see that
things have tightened up, that there is more back and forth
between FirstNet and the States, and that you have a contact
out there that you can get to all the time?
Mr. Davis. Yes, we do. We have made significant progress.
FirstNet, in the outreach component, has done an excellent job.
Their message is consistent, and there is a point of contact
for us. As a matter of fact, I believe we have a meeting on
Friday of this week. So the communication piece is moving
forward very well, that component of it.
And the point that we just need to make sure we understand
is that we are making decision at the State level on a variety
of different initiatives that we have going on, Next Generation
911 being one, and the architecting of that. If there are
things that we can do that will better position our initiative
in Ohio to support FirstNet, and vice-versa, those are the
types of activities that we want to talk through.
Mr. Latta. Well, I think also you mentioned in your
testimony the planning and development, especially in the State
of Ohio. And the 11 years that I served in the General
Assembly, working on the MARCS system at that time, there was a
lot of discussion about the cost, et cetera, and also the LMR.
Is that being considered and taken in to account, especially
for the amount of money that Ohio has invested over all those
years, especially, like, in MARCS?
Mr. Davis. I think absolutely it is. I think that it is the
mission critical piece that we have. There are 1,300 different
disparate systems that we are trying to push forward to move
into MARCS as a shared service model. Very similar, I would
imagine, to some of the things that we are hearing from
FirstNet. And we would like to engage and partner in that,
because we have partnering tiers that we set up that would be,
I think, valuable for FirstNet to understand how we are
operating today.
Mr. Latta. And pardon me for interrupting, but you said you
would like to. Are you being taken into those discussions?
Because you said like to. Is that that you are or aren't
getting that information in those discussions?
Mr. Davis. I think those things are starting now. They
started about 3 months ago. We didn't get the grant for the
planning side through our controlling board process until
September. So things in the last month have moved quickly. In
the last 6 weeks, things have been significantly better, and
that communication is ramping up.
Mr. Latta. Well, not just wanting to pick on you here,
especially in your testimony, you are talking about especially
the volunteer firefighters. And the pushback, as you say in
your testimony, on the $240 a year to have an operational radio
on our system in Ohio. And I tell you, I know, with my 14
counties, and the backbone out there is that volunteer fire
department.
And, you know, I go to a lot of chicken barbecues, and
pancake days, and fish fries, and for all of the things that
those folks are doing out there to protect their friends and
neighbors, you know, they just can't take a lot of mandates out
there. So, you know, where are the dollars going to be coming
from for those folks out there across the State of Ohio, and
across the Nation, for these volunteers to pay for this?
Mr. Davis. What a great question. It is something we
wrestle with all the time with the MARCS system today, as you
well know. We are looking at everything that we can possibly do
to try to lower those costs as much as possible. A lot of that
is economy of scale, and the more municipalities, the more
counties that come on board to the radio system will drive
those costs down, and make that at least a little bit more
affordable.
I know that we are looking at different ways to try to
figure out how to crack that volunteer component, because $240
a year doesn't sound like much, but when you have 10
volunteers, that is a lot of money. And at some point in time,
those events happen, we need to engage with those people, and
it is critical to the response in that area.
Mr. Latta. OK. Just real briefly in my last 20 seconds, on
that economy of scale, when you are looking at the economy of
scale, are you talking about, like, for the volunteers across
the State, or are you looking at particular areas in the State
of Ohio?
Mr. Davis. We are looking at the volunteers across the
State of Ohio, but we are also looking at the 1,300 different
disparate systems out there as they fold in. And we have got
quite a bit of success here in probably the last 8 months in
getting counties, and their radio systems, into our system and
leveraging their assets, and some of the assets that we have,
to benefit both the county, as well as the statewide effort
that we have going on.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. My time has expired, and I recognize
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here. I, along with Anna, have been working in the first
responder issues for a long time, and 911, so we are pleased we
are here. Some of us would have liked to have gotten here a
different way, but this is the rules of the road now. And so,
Mr. Davis, compelling testimony, because your folks are my
constituents. I represent 1/3 of the State.
And so, Mr. Ginn, I hope you really take heed to some of
these concerns in Mr. Davis's opening, and his testimony. I
keep highlighting, and he makes some compelling arguments. And,
you know, we work for those volunteer fire departments, or
those small communities, and we have to get this right. You
have great success in the private sector, and I always wonder
when the private sector experts come to government, and how
they get chewed up in the bureaucracy. I mean, you gave a great
example of the 4 months in hiring an employee. I mean, that is
government, and that makes it challenging.
But your opening statement was right on. You have got to
get it built, and you have got to get it built right, and I
applaud that focus. I would also add you have got to get it
built within budget. And this business model debate that is
raised by Mr. Davis, not just at your end, but also down at
their end, because I know, in this debate, one of the
underlying things was, don't worry, the government will bring
you more money if you don't get it right, and I don't think you
can assume that.
Mr. Ginn. Can I respond?
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Please.
Mr. Ginn. Yes. You know, I take the $7 billion as a
personal and organizational challenge. And, if you have a
moment, let me tell you how I think about it, because----
Mr. Shimkus. I want to get to LTE too, so, yes, I do have a
moment, but don't----
Mr. Ginn. OK.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Take my 3 minutes.
Mr. Ginn. OK. You know, the first thing you need to
understand, what is the cost of the network? And you are going
to spend a lot of time trying to drive down the cost of that
network, as I was suggesting about free cell sites in States
and Federal buildings.
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Mr. Ginn. Because that would dramatically decrease the cost
of providing the network. You have got a couple other costs.
You have got to stand up an organization. We are doing that
now. We are putting people in 10 regional offices to work with
Ohio and other places. And then we will reach a point----
Mr. Shimkus. Let us just go here and say you are going to
do your utmost to have an efficient system that is going to be
cost-effective, and you are going to try to deploy what has
been requested----
Mr. Ginn. Yes. And the point I want to make to you is
simply this, that if we get to the bottom line, and we are not
there, we are going to reiterate the whole process and look to
take out other costs. So----
Mr. Shimkus. Right. I just raise that because there is a
concern, not just at your level, at the local level, and we
have got to get the costs right too, otherwise we are not going
to be where we want to be.
You did talk about LTE, and the great technology, and the
data stuff, but mission critical voice is also an important
aspect of this debate. Can you explain FirstNet, this is also
for Mr. Orr, on, obviously, the voice aspect of this, that is
part of the application with NIST, and where are at with that?
Mr. Orr. So, just to be clear, NPSTC defined mission
critical voice, and that is a group of public safety
associations, as the ability to talk directly from one device
to another, so direct mode, push-to-talk, like public safety
uses now with their radios, full duplex voices, which is how we
talk on our cell phones right now, where you can talk over each
other, group call, so that you talk one to many, talker
identification, like caller ID, emergency alerting, so I hit a
button, and I get automatic access to the network if I am in an
emergency situation, and audio quality, so that you can
actually hear me in difficult environments, like firefighters
and police often work in.
The most challenging aspects for mission critical voice
right now are really the top three, which are dealing with
push-to-talk capability, group communications, and direct mode
device-to-device, because those aren't issues that are being
dealt with by the commercial community right now. So that is
what we are working in LTE, and that is where we have had,
actually, very significant progress on the LTE standards. And
we are working closely with the other countries around the
world that are also deploying their own public safety LTE
networks, because every single one of them needs this mission
critical voice capability.
So our expectation, at least from a PSCR perspective, is
within the next 18 to 24 months, we would like to start seeing
prototypes in our laboratories that display this capability,
that we can at least start assessing, testing, and, as Chairman
Ginn said, reiterating on the standards to ensure that these
products someday actually meet the capabilities of the current
land mobile radio systems.
Mr. Shimkus. Great, and I will just end on this. The
Seattle Times, of all papers, wrote an article about the
tornadoes that went through my district, and a lot of the
Midwest, Ohio and Indiana, and how people's lives were saved
through the communication to their cell phones and the like.
Obviously, the people didn't have access to that, may not have
got as clear a warning as they could have, but we are getting
there. But there is concerns about the top down, the business
model, and I would hope you work with our local providers,
because they are the key to this, making it work.
Mr. Ginn. If you take nothing else away from here, you need
to understand that I understand that if you don't satisfy your
customers, you don't have a business.
Mr. Shimkus. Amen. Yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. And, for Chairman Walden, and
also for Ranking Member Eshoo, we want to thank you again for
your testimony today, and your patience when we had to go to
vote. We greatly appreciate that.
And, if there is nothing further come before the committee,
the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]